MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2784161421 · doi:10.1177/1352458517737373

Mendelian randomization in multiple sclerosis: A causal role for vitamin D and obesity?

2018· review· en· W2784161421 on OpenAlexaff
Adil Harroud, J. Brent Richards

Bibliographic record

VenueMultiple Sclerosis Journal · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMendelian randomizationCausal inferenceMultiple sclerosisConfoundingCausationDiseaseCausality (physics)Marginal structural modelMedicineEpidemiologyBioinformaticsGenetic variantsBiologyGeneticsPsychiatryPathologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The etiology of multiple sclerosis (MS) involves a complex interplay of genetic and environmental factors. Epidemiologic studies have furthered our understanding of these risk factors but remain limited by residual confounding and potential for reverse causation, particularly in MS where time of disease onset is not known. Mendelian randomization (MR) uses genetic variants to study the causal effect of modifiable exposures on an outcome. This method avoids some of the limitations of classical epidemiology and can strengthen causal inference. Here, we introduce the basic concepts of MR and review its contributions to the field of MS. Indeed, several studies using MR have now provided support for a causal role for low vitamin D level and obesity in the development of MS.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.178
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.166 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMultiple Sclerosis JournalSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207